(Original post by Pranavian)
I don't think that is bad at all... I'm quite strongly against the idea of people censoring internet use, I see it as a human right infringment!

What about child porn? Besides, it's not a right, it's not having the vote, or not being a child starving to death or fighting in a war it's an effing privilege. A privilege which should be revoked in the case of the crooks running this scheme.

(Original post by Pranavian)
I don't think that is bad at all... I'm quite strongly against the idea of people censoring internet use, I see it as a human right infringment!

The internet is already censored. For example, if there was a country where 14 year olds could go pornography legally then that website would be made illegal in the UK and blocked access by ISPs. Same with illegal drugs and so on. The internet isn't anything goes playground. It's like the real world hence why hate crime/harassment etc apply too.

(Original post by Sisu)
Wrong. You do realize that for the majority of top selling artists, they don't write their music on their own? There will be multiple different people (including the artists although not always). The equipment (for the song recording, video, concerts etc) the artists uses gets hooked up by the label. The promotion of the artists is again down to the label. Artists are conveyers like actors they aren't much without directors, screenwriters etc etc.

How on earth can you come to the conclusion that they're being paid too much? Have you estimated the price of the equipment? The price for promotion? The market price for ghost writers? The market price for the executives? You probably haven't so don't make presumptions unscientific statements like that.

Well that's an entirely different discussion, one on how we continually lower our standards to the point where we've reduced artists to performing monkeys prevented from being their own ****ing person. "Watch the dancing puppet children, pay no attention to the evil scum****s behind it milking your wallet dry. Don't think for yourself, buy this and stay stupid people".
However if the artist is hiring song-writers, then the money should still go to the artists and their songwriters - not to some buzz-cut suit doing the marketing, as if they're deserving of being handsomely rewarded for polluting our minds and our culture.

All the precious time you spend in the studios is money lost, everything is a business in life, the artists and labels want to milk the system, it will be interesting if this move by ISP's will spark any other moves to target piracy.

It will work because pirate bay is not a torrent site, it hooks people up with torrent sites so it will make things more difficult for people illegally downloading what other people have made. Hopefully so difficult that it will frustrate people into buying legally as convenience seems to be such a factor in why people do this.

All the precious time you spend in the studios is money lost, everything is a business in life, the artists and labels want to milk the system, it will be interesting if this move by ISP's will spark any other moves to target piracy.

Think of how many people are employed making the videos and songs, it isn't just the singer, her agent and the man in the suit.

1.Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it: "thieves stole her bicycle".
2.Dishonestly pass off (another person's ideas) as one's own: "accusations that one group had stolen ideas from the other were soon flying".

Looks like it is, the thing no longer being in the possession of the person from which it was stolen matters not.

With science books the presentation matters, so does the arrangement of the information and the what information is included, I buy CGP for revision rather than using wiki because it includes only what I need to know.

If you don't like what's being offered don't buy it, are you 8 years old? Do you walk into shops and refuse to pay for something because you imagined it being better but still take it anyway?

None of those definitions fit that of downloading an mp3 from the pirate bay, so thanks for proving my point.

If you take something from a shop, they have actually lost money - its a tangible object that along with development costs is actually worth something. A mp3 file isn't worth anything - and by downloading it for free I haven't cost anyone anything.

(Original post by TheHansa)
They should be shut down for aiding criminal activity on an industrial scale then, the name says it all really.

The name of a company or organisation has nothing to do with whether it should be shut down. They facilitate peer-to-peer file sharing - That is all. What the end users do with it is the problem concerning the copyright holder and the end user.

(Original post by TheHansa)
What about child porn? Besides, it's not a right, it's not having the vote, or not being a child starving to death or fighting in a war it's an effing privilege. A privilege which should be revoked in the case of the crooks running this scheme.

CP is the only exception to which nearly everyone feels censorship is necessary. However, Once you start censoring the internet for non Criminal (I.e Civil) purposes, where will it stop? If someone writes something about me on their blog, should I go to the court and get the whole of blogger censored?

(Original post by Alofleicester)
Well that's an entirely different discussion, one on how we continually lower our standards to the point where we've reduced artists to performing monkeys prevented from being their own ****ing person. "Watch the dancing puppet children, pay no attention to the evil scum****s behind it milking your wallet dry. Don't think for yourself, buy this and stay stupid people".
However if the artist is hiring song-writers, then the money should still go to the artists and their songwriters - not to some buzz-cut suit doing the marketing, as if they're deserving of being handsomely rewarded for polluting our minds and our culture.

Lol at this ridiculous hippie hipster new-age bull****. Just because something is manufactured doesn't mean it's ****. It has nothing to do with thinking for yourself. You like the music ergo you buy it. It doesn't matter whether they wrote it by themselves or had help from multiple different artists. They aren't polluting ****. They're being paid because without them then most of us wouldn't have heard of their song, they wouldn't have hooked up their song to music channels to promote it or with youtube/vevo etc. The reason why the executive make the money is because they are the ones who have had guys that do talent search. It's a chain. "When I made 50 mil Em got paid / When I made 60 mil Dre got paid / When I made 80 mil Jimmy got paid " Even though Jimmy didn't hire 50, he hired Dre who hired Em who hired 50 ergo all of them deserve a cut. Simples. They're all connected with each other.

Lets not get into a debate about a subjective topic like music where your interest aren't chosen rather developed based on your environment.

(Original post by jacksonliam)
None of those definitions fit that of downloading an mp3 from the pirate bay, so thanks for proving my point.

Putting a file onto your computer is taking it, putting it onto your computer in a way which is not legally approved makes it stealing.

If you take something from a shop, they have actually lost money - its a tangible object that along with development costs is actually worth something. A mp3 file isn't worth anything - and by downloading it for free I haven't cost anyone anything.
[/QUOTE]

It is worth something until you can access it for nothing

(Original post by jacksonliam)
The name of a company or organisation has nothing to do with whether it should be shut down. They facilitate peer-to-peer file sharing - That is all. What the end users do with it is the problem concerning the copyright holder and the end user.

Their name, their logo, their attitude shows that they are very happy to break the law for money.

(Original post by jacksonliam)
CP is the only exception to which nearly everyone feels censorship is necessary. However, Once you start censoring the internet for non Criminal (I.e Civil) purposes, where will it stop? If someone writes something about me on their blog, should I go to the court and get the whole of blogger censored?

What a ****ing joke. I want the bloody internet to be one place where its do whatever you want. Never going to happen was it? ****ers. If the UK carry on with this crap and there are other countries that don't limit users then I really would consider moving and leaving the country. This is bound to be just the start of it.

Yeah fine, very easy to get around and lets face it, most of the big uploaders have their own sites, but it's the principal of it all. I just don't know. I'm hoping there is a part of this which means they don't actually have to block it and there is a chance for appeals and all sorts of rubbish. That or there is at least one or broadband suppliers that refuse to ban anything. This is surely the forward step towards thing like SOPA, ACTA(?) and that other CISPA one that popped up. Sigh.

At the end of it though, it's a DNS block and as users we get to chose whichever DNS server we would like to connect to the internet on. There are so many users so I'm sure they can ban the majority of users from doing things but for A LOT of us there will be no way to block us properly.

The one thing this will create; companies that will strictly be against this and will offer services to get around it. So if anything they are sort of killing one source and at the same time, motivating more and more people to get around it.

(Original post by Sisu)
Lol at this ridiculous hippie hipster new-age bull****. Just because something is manufactured doesn't mean it's ****. It has nothing to do with thinking for yourself. You like the music ergo you buy it. It doesn't matter whether they wrote it by themselves or had help from multiple different artists. They aren't polluting ****. They're being paid because without them then most of us wouldn't have heard of their song, they wouldn't have hooked up their song to music channels to promote it or with youtube/vevo etc. The reason why the executive make the money is because they are the ones who have had guys that do talent search. It's a chain. "When I made 50 mil Em got paid / When I made 60 mil Dre got paid / When I made 80 mil Jimmy got paid " Even though Jimmy didn't hire 50, he hired Dre who hired Em who hired 50 ergo all of them deserve a cut. Simples. They're all connected with each other.

Lets not get into a debate about a subjective topic like music where your interest aren't chosen rather developed based on your environment.

I never said that manufactured music was automatically ****, although most of it is. I didn't say the Artists were polluting our minds or our culture.
What I said was, the record companies are ****ing us over. The ****ing ad-men who will do their best to put a ****ing price-tag on every ****ing thing they can get near - "Look Jimmy, it's a turd. Quick, charge people to look at it!".

You don't need ****ing talent spotters at every corner of the globe for bands to make it, you don't need ****ing talent shows like the X-factor for good artists to get the recognition they deserve - if they have talent they'll make it. All the record companies do is flood the market full of rubbish, auto-tuned to **** and then rake in the cash as their little talentless ****s the marketing people trick people into buying it. "It's not just a turd, it's a turd wearing a suit and wig. Well ****, take my money you little scoundrels. A turd wearing a suit, you're geniuses."

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK

If I hear one more time that illegal downloading destroys jobs I'm going to go mad. Illegal downloading means people spend less money on music and films so it destroys jobs in the media, true. But people spend that money on other things (for example, restaurants / holidays), creating jobs in those industries.

Support your local pub: download a film and go out for a pint with the money you saved!

File-sharing site The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK internet service providers, the High Court has ruled.

The Swedish website hosts links to download mostly-pirated, free music and video.

Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site.

"Sites like The Pirate Bay destroy jobs in the UK and undermine investment in new British artists," the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) said.

The BPI's chief executive Geoff Taylor said: "The High Court has confirmed that The Pirate Bay infringes copyright on a massive scale.

"Its operators line their pockets by commercially exploiting music and other creative works without paying a penny to the people who created them.

"This is wrong - musicians, sound engineers and video editors deserve to be paid for their work just like everyone else."

Virgin Media told the BBC they will comply with the request, but warned such measures are, in the long term, somewhat ineffective.

"As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price."

Of course, this can be bypassed with insouciant ease. What are your thoughts?

Yes we should all be Luddites.

How the **** do they know? We have digital VCR's. Isnt that damaging the industry much more? All these figures they throw around are just made up.

People who have money are going to spend it on something. The music industry is a prime example of that. Sure record sales are down but they make a lot of money from concerts.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
I never said that manufactured music was automatically ****, although most of it is. I didn't say the Artists were polluting our minds or our culture.
What I said was, the record companies are ****ing us over. The ****ing ad-men who will do their best to put a ****ing price-tag on every ****ing thing they can get near - "Look Jimmy, it's a turd. Quick, charge people to look at it!".

You don't need ****ing talent spotters at every corner of the globe for bands to make it, you don't need ****ing talent shows like the X-factor for good artists to get the recognition they deserve - if they have talent they'll make it. All the record companies do is flood the market full of rubbish, auto-tuned to **** and then rake in the cash as their little talentless ****s the marketing people trick people into buying it. "It's not just a turd, it's a turd wearing a suit and wig. Well ****, take my money you little scoundrels. A turd wearing a suit, you're geniuses."

Quality is subjective, but most people like mainstream music hence it being mainstream.

Little puzzle for your mind to solve, much of the stuff pirate bay helps people download is mainstream why don't you want to protect people by having the site shut down?

(Original post by TheHansa)
Putting a file onto your computer is taking it, putting it onto your computer in a way which is not legally approved makes it stealing.

It is worth something until you can access it for nothing

Their name, their logo, their attitude shows that they are very happy to break the law for money.

If it causes you damage then yes.

No it doesn't. Downloading a file is not illegal or stealing, irrespective of its contents. Digital information does not have a cost associated with it, the actual file cost them nothing for me to receive.

The song had certain development costs, the producer profits from the song being publicly performed, broadcast and privately purchased.
But just because I have not purchased the song, does not mean I have stolen it, nothing has been taken from the producers.

Steal verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.

Take verb (used with object)
to get into one's hold or possession by voluntary action: to take a cigarette out of a box; to take a pen and begin to write.

I can quote dictionaries too...

The pirate bay do ignore take down requests and obviously can be used to find a link to parts of a file containing copyrighted material. However, that does not mean that UK residents should be censored from accessing the site.

The UK government shouldn't take it on themselves to force the user end ISPs (who just buy traffic from their upstream ISP) to censor what their customers are allowed to access.

(Original post by El Torres)
At the end of it though, it's a DNS block and as users we get to chose whichever DNS server we would like to connect to the internet on. There are so many users so I'm sure they can ban the majority of users from doing things but for A LOT of us there will be no way to block us properly.

Its possibly an IP block too, with the possibility to block further IPs without going back to court. NewzBin2 had those restrictions I think. How actively the ISPs keep up with the blocking will see how hard it is to evade - I'm sure they wont go the whole 'html filter' hog though - so proxies and vncs will work.

(Original post by Alofleicester)
I never said that manufactured music was automatically ****, although most of it is. I didn't say the Artists were polluting our minds or our culture.
What I said was, the record companies are ****ing us over. The ****ing ad-men who will do their best to put a ****ing price-tag on every ****ing thing they can get near - "Look Jimmy, it's a turd. Quick, charge people to look at it!".

You don't need ****ing talent spotters at every corner of the globe for bands to make it, you don't need ****ing talent shows like the X-factor for good artists to get the recognition they deserve - if they have talent they'll make it. All the record companies do is flood the market full of rubbish, auto-tuned to **** and then rake in the cash as their little talentless ****s the marketing people trick people into buying it. "It's not just a turd, it's a turd wearing a suit and wig. Well ****, take my money you little scoundrels. A turd wearing a suit, you're geniuses."

If it was rubbish then it wouldn't be mainstream. But, no let me guess you have superior musical taste right? Only Pink Floyd/Beatles for you right? Recognize there's no such thing as ****ty music, only ****ty music to you. In the same way no one clams Snickers is objectively superior to Mars, everyone recognizes taste is relative to the individual and arguing which is better is futile.

Again, you can apply this to any products. Why have advertisements for Shampoo? Again, talent spotters are pretty good at what they do hence why they're hired in the first place. If people wanna buy turd in a suit, who are you to look down on them for it? Stop being so obnoxious.

(Original post by TheHansa)
Quality is subjective, but most people like mainstream music hence it being mainstream.

Little puzzle for your mind to solve, much of the stuff pirate bay helps people download is mainstream why don't you want to protect people by having the site shut down?

Your point being?

Well, because shutting the site down doesn't help people. Y'see the issue?
Selling albums gets the Artist very little for themselves, where artists'll make their money is touring. Now tell me, if the albums are free to listen to, or as highly priced as they are - which one's gonna get them the more fans? The one where it's free?
If they have more fans, they can shift more gig tickets, put on more shows, shift more merchandise and do you see where this is going, what the outcome will be?
They'll make more money in the area where they actually see the slightest bit of the money coming.

Edit:

(Original post by Sisu)
If it was rubbish then it wouldn't be mainstream. But, no let me guess you have superior musical taste right? Only Pink Floyd/Beatles for you right? Recognize there's no such thing as ****ty music, only ****ty music to you. In the same way no one clams Snickers is objectively superior to Mars, everyone recognizes taste is relative to the individual and arguing which is better is futile.

Again, you can apply this to any products. Why have advertisements for Shampoo? Again, talent spotters are pretty good at what they do hence why they're hired in the first place. If people wanna buy turd in a suit, who are you to look down on them for it? Stop being so obnoxious.

Got to say, I love your optimism and faith in people. There's plenty of crap out there that becomes huge for, well, no apparent reason. I refer you to - The Spice Girls, Sugarbabes, Everything the Disney channel has ever done and so on.
Don't actually like the Beatles all that much chap, try again. Most music is subjective, however there is some that is clearly rubbish: Case A.

Well yes - why have advertising at all? Who are these people who need to be told what to buy? Ok, so they're good at spotting talent, but I have a question - If these artists were truly talented, would they need to be spotted or could they like, y'know, make it themselves - kinda like how, say, Biffy Clyro have done?